“celebrity?” - i never heard of Dr Shiva.Bootstrap wrote: ↑Fri Nov 11, 2022 6:13 pmSigh. So many celebrity political figures promoting iffy controversies.
And Shiva seems to spend a lot of time and energy filing lawsuits and publicizing them, losing the lawsuit, but winning the publicity. Which makes him a celebrity.
Shiva's case was dismissed. I think this is a good description of the case:
My view:On September 1, 2020, the plaintiff learned that he had lost the 2020 Massachusetts Republican primary senate race. Shortly after, the plaintiff and his volunteers issued Freedom of Information Act requests to the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office and over a dozen jurisdictions respectively, seeking ballot images, log files, voters lists, and other election records. On September 25, 2020, the plaintiff tweeted the false claim that Massachusetts had “destroy[ed] over 1 million ballots,” citing communications with a Massachusetts elections attorney.
The defendants notified Twitter through the Partner Support Portal that the plaintiff was spreading election misinformation. The platform subsequently removed the plaintiff’s tweets and suspended his account on September 26, 2020. The plaintiff filed a complaint on October 20, 2020, arguing that the reporting of his tweets, subsequent takedown, and the suspension of his accounts were in violation of his First Amendment rights.
1. Twitter is a private company. They aren't bound by the 1st Amendment.
2. Massachusetts, on the other hand, is a branch of the government, and they are bound by the 1st Amendment (via the 14th Amendment). But they didn't seem to demand that Twitter take his posts down, they simply told Twitter that his posts were false. That's an important difference.
3. Shiva's claims were clearly false, but he continues to make them in public without getting arrested. His 1st Amendment rights seem to be intact.
4. If Shiva wanted to demonstrate that they are true, he could take them to court with some evidence, or persuade electoral boards with some evidence. But he prefers YouTube.
Because he didn't have the evidence to win in court.On August 10, 2021, the case was voluntarily dismissed and all parties agreed that there was no remaining controversy between them.
however, the central question posed in several posts above, P.5-6, and some elsewhere,
are questioning government over reach by way of well-intentioned but unrestricted policies put in place during knee-jerk reactions to 9-11-2001 / DHS / DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY / THE PATRIOT ACT. Awesome language! Easy to trust!
so, these would be deemed legal - the questioners are asking, “should they be legal?”
of course those implementing them are satisfied.
it’s smilar to the overturn of RvW.
abortions were legal, popular, profitable, none of which makes them either Constitutional or morally correct.
1) the USSC is to rule on Constitutionality; 2) churches, communities/states, individuals determine morality;
3) the market depends on profits.
nothing is improved or corrected unless some have the willingness to observe, think, ask hard questions.
(i happen to recall) some were wise enough to foresee future abuse of power right away, questions about DHS and The Patriot Act.
esp in times of duress/emergencies, not all decisions are wise. there was tremendous emotion/confusion following 9-11-2001.
If i recall, on this forum, Mr Jim was an early questioner of DHS / The Patriot Act.
AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE,
but, prevention requires unusual presence of foresight often lacking.
i do not expect you to read text or listen to videos/tapes, or respond to them.
let’s not pretend we’re talking about the same things. that changes the topic to something else and gets confusing.
the most recent bend in this thread is, in retrospect, questioning the wisdom of DHS / HOMELAND SECURITY / THE PATRIOT ACT.
several years and a few presidents have passed, there are examples of implementation to review.
in this thread, and the other, Twitter thread, the main questions are about gov collusion with social media -
in another thread, military over reach is another serious component of these questions.
P.17 / http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... &start=160
P.4 / http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... 9&start=30